The data center fight is going global

This article The data center fight is going global was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Earlier this year, Gallup asked a national sample of Americans whether they would support an AI data center being built in their local area. Seventy-one percent opposed it, 48 percent of them strongly. Opposition to living near a nuclear power plant was markedly lower, at 53 percent. Republicans, Democrats and independents all rejected data centers. Asked why, respondents most often pointed to environmental concerns: water, energy, land use, noise and air pollution — and the lack of community consent.

At Social Change Lab we recently ran a randomized controlled trial with 3,467 participants to answer a question the AI accountability movement has been wrestling with: Which of AI’s many harms actually move people from concern to action? We tested 11 different arguments, from environmental effects to job losses and the harms of algorithmic bias; from AI enabling more pervasive surveillance to the risk of superintelligent AI leading to human extinction. 

The results showed that AI’s environmental impacts were the strongest predictor of willingness to act. Job displacement — the issue people mention most unprompted, ranked much lower. Extinction risk came last. And the emotion most strongly associated with action was not fear or anxiety, but anger.

Previous Coverage

The data center backlash that’s uniting America

These findings should concentrate the minds of climate organizers and funders alike. Data centers have become a focal point for public anger not just over AI but over climate policy around the world. Unlike abstract metrics such as “CO2 parts per million,” every data center is tangible; it requires a planning application, a zoning decision, a water permit and elected officials willing to approve — or reject — it. These local decisions create concrete opportunities for organizing.

In the United States, the movement to halt data centers has grown with remarkable speed: The New York State Assembly recently passed what could become the country’s first statewide moratorium; Seattle became the largest American city to adopt one after residents generated more than 96,000 emails to the city council; and more than 500 organizations from 47 states have joined the Stop Data Centers Coalition. 

“Concerns about data centers are agitating even people who have never taken a public stand on any issue before,” Deeda Seed of the Center for Biological Diversity told Waging Nonviolence in June. “They’re willing to take a stand on this.”

But the movement is growing far beyond the United States. In fact, one of the clearest victories so far came in a Dutch town that few people outside the Netherlands had heard of before 2021.

The case of Zeewolde

In February 2021, Meta proposed building a 200-megawatt hyperscale data center on 410 acres of reclaimed farmland outside Zeewolde, a town of just over 22,000 people. It would have consumed at least twice as much electricity as the town itself. Residents, farmers and Extinction Rebellion campaigners objected not just to the scale of the project, but to the secrecy surrounding it. Officials had spent two years negotiating with Meta while keeping the company’s identity out of the public record, and many residents felt scarce renewable energy was being handed to a foreign corporation for little local benefit. 

The campaign worked on two fronts at once. Locally, they plastered posters on the town hall, organized a residents’ petition and waged nonviolent direct action. Days before the December vote, 20 Extinction Rebellion activists occupied the council building’s public hall with banners reading “We want Greta, not Meta,” until police cleared them out. Nationally, allies in The Hague were pressing a different lever. Part of the land Meta needed belonged to the state, and motions in both chambers of parliament urged ministers to use that leverage. 

Campaigners lost the first vote when the council approved the project in December 2021. But they won almost everything that followed. Within months the Dutch government imposed a moratorium on new hyperscale developments; local elections delivered a council majority to the anti-data center Leefbaar Zeewolde Party; the Dutch Senate blocked the sale of the government-owned land Meta needed; and by July 2022 the company had abandoned the project. The Netherlands subsequently restricted hyperscale facilities over 70 megawatts to just two designated sites.

In Zeewolde the fight was against a single project. In Ireland it was taking on the whole tech industry, which began aggressive expansion in the 2010s. Resistance to data centers came early there, too — and initially it was successful. In 2018, Apple abandoned a $1 billion project in Athenry after objectors ran the approval to the Supreme Court of Ireland. 

The government’s answer was to back the tech sector harder, using legislation to route large applications past local councils. Data centers kept coming. Organizers built a real coalition to stop them, united around a  moratorium bill in the Dáil, the lower house of Ireland’s parliament. 

But when a moratorium arrived, in 2021, it was instituted by the grid operator, which stopped issuing connections around Dublin for fear of blackouts. Nobody had voted for it, and when it lapsed in December 2025, there was no political win to defend. Friends of the Irish Environment, Friends of the Earth Ireland and ClientEarth are now suing to overturn the new rules. Data centers used 23 percent of Irish electricity last year, up from five percent a decade ago, and they are forecast to reach 31 percent by 2034. 

Zeewolde’s win was written into national law by a parliament that a grassroots campaign had won over. Ireland’s pause arrived as an engineering judgment — and departed as one.  

A global movement

Outside Europe and the United States, the sharpest conflicts are often about water.

In Santiago, Chile, community opposition forced Google back to the drawing board in 2024 after a court ruled that its proposed Cerrillos district data center had failed to account properly for climate change in assessing impacts on the city’s overstretched aquifer. A second Google project in nearby Quilicura was halted by residents the same year.

“We don’t need more data centers here taking our water so people in the Global North can draw funny pictures on AI,” Tania Rodríguez, founder of the Chilean water rights group Mosacat, told Time magazine.

In neighboring Uruguay, campaigners went to court in 2022 to discover what Google was planning. They learned the proposed cooling system would use 2 million gallons of drinking water a day from a supply under severe strain. As the campaign  said, “No es sequía, es saqueo,” or “It’s not drought, it’s pillage.” The project ultimately proceeded only after Google agreed to reduce its scale and abandon using water for cooling.

The movement is spreading. In Australia, Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium while community groups like Tomorrow Movement organize against major projects in Western Sydney. In France, data centers are featured in municipal election campaigns. Across Africa, where at least 11 governments have spent more than $2 billion on AI-enabled surveillance systems (including CCTV, license-plate readers, facial recognition and command centers where the feeds converge), AI infrastructure often raises concerns about surveillance as much as energy use. Abeba Birhane’s concept of “algorithmic colonialism” puts a name to a familiar pattern of extraction and unequal power, something of particular concern in authoritarian contexts. 

The climate movement has spent decades searching for an issue that is local, immediate, genuinely winnable and has broad political appeal. Data centers may prove to be exactly that. Communities have shown that these fights can be won. So how can others do it? And will the movement have the resources to take on the best-funded industry in history?

How to fight a data center

Of the thousands of people all over the United States and around the world who are stepping up to fight AI data centers, the vast majority aren’t lawyers or politicians. Most are regular people who are using what skills they have to fight off a raw deal for their community. In Central Oregon, farmers have organized tractor parades to city hall in protest; in Maryland, a concerned beauty salon worker quit her job and led a successful fight for a moratorium; and in Apex, North Carolina, an unlikely coalition of teachers, parents and IT professionals came together to defeat an AI data center. These are people using their skills and everyday know-how to build power with neighbors — and you can do it, too. 

1. Find out what they haven’t told you

Almost every successful campaign begins with research.

Companies consistently announce projects in terms of investment, jobs and innovation while leaving crucial questions unanswered. They use shell companies, non-disclosure agreements or opaque planning processes to hide the details — and the most important information is often what’s hidden.

How many permanent jobs will the facility really create? What will it mean for electricity prices and grid reliability? Where will the water come from, and where will it go? What subsidies or tax incentives have been offered? What noise, air and light pollution will nearby residents experience?

Residents can find the answers to these questions by researching online, scrutinizing planning applications, filing Freedom of Information Act requests, talking to people fighting projects by similar companies, checking zoning documents, and more. The work doesn’t need specialist skills so much as determination — you already have the tools you need. The Commons Social Change Library recently published a practical guide for organizers wherever new projects emerge.

And doing this work tends to motivate others to show up and help out. We can all contribute something, even if that’s making food for folks searching the internet: Anyone can fight and anyone can win.

2. Build the broadest coalition

One of the most successful things about this organic movement so far has been the ability of groups to focus on common goals instead of differences. A huge majority of Americans oppose AI data centers. Again and again neighbors with different politics, ideas, professions and class backgrounds are uniting because they agree on one thing: They don’t want an AI data center in their community. Conservatives and progressives find themselves making the same case at the same council meeting.

That breadth is really important. Tech companies often expect opposition from the “usual suspects” and have their arguments rehearsed. But they are much less prepared to push back on church groups, local businesses, sports clubs, zoo staff, neighborhood associations and concerned residents who have never attended a public meeting before. 

3. Understand what winning looks like 

Once some information is gathered and a group of people is getting together, a lot more resistance is possible. Moratoriums are popular because they buy time once people recognize that we are on our back heels in the fight against Big Tech. Some pundits have complained that this isn’t a full solution, and it’s not — a moratorium isn’t radical at all, it just means pausing to reboot since we are up against the richest companies that have ever existed. Slowing things down is part of the stage for achieving something bigger. 

Because of the power imbalance and loose rules for big companies, the two most common wins right now are reactive: stopping individual data center projects and winning moratoria or bans. Neither is perfect, but both can be building blocks towards more transparency, robust regulation and eventually building alternatives that fit with what communities actually want. Ultimately, part of why data centers are so hated is because they are externalizing so many costs onto people — from increased public health risks, to higher costs of living, to dangerous pollution. 

Winning is about understanding those trade-offs and moving the discussion toward investing in things we actually want and need, like public libraries and skate parks and safe bike lanes, all of which create jobs. When students, environmental advocates and neighbors came together to defeat a data center in New Brunswick, New Jersey, local officials immediately shifted to the other option on the table and kicked plans into gear to build a public park instead. That is the alternative: more shade, more trees, and spaces to gather and exercise, instead of a creepy box full of wires and chips.

Resourcing the fight

As we’ve noted, this organic, volunteer-based movement against AI data centers is one anyone can fight and anyone can win, and movements can and often do come about and grow organically. But, some of the most successful movements throughout history, from the U.S. civil rights movement to the Indian independence movement, were resourced in their earliest stages. Such an influx of funding helps ensure a movement can be sustained beyond local fights and scale to a more cohesive, strategic, national or global campaign. 

Yet, funders often arrive to movements last, hopping on the bandwagon once an issue has become popular. The lag is structural: Philanthropy funds organizations, and the most effective groups in passionate moments often don’t have official names, let alone 501(c)(3)s or professional grant writers. Often, they start with a WhatsApp group, a church hall meeting or an improvised coalition of neighbors. By the time a grant cycle catches up to a movement, the legislative windows have sometimes passed. 

That is exactly where the data center movement finds itself today. Across the U.S. — and increasingly around the world — data center resistance movements have energy and are building more and more momentum. What they often lack are the things that allow movements to grow: organizing staff, legal support, trainers and the connective tissue that allows communities to learn from one another instead of reinventing every campaign from scratch. Foundations can step up now to help ensure this fight goes even further than just local wins. 

There is good reason to invest early. Some of the most successful environmental campaigns of the past two decades — from the movement against fracking to the coalition that helped secure the Inflation Reduction Act — were strengthened by philanthropic support before victory looked inevitable. Early funding allowed organizers to build sustainable networks rather than simply react to the next crisis.

That precedent is why Climate Emergency Fund has moved more than a third of its 2026 grants to groups organizing around data centers and AI, sometimes before those groups have a name. It serves as a form of venture philanthropy: Fund early, move fast, stay close to the communities doing the work. We are already seeing funding requests arrive from four continents as resistance to AI infrastructure becomes an increasingly global phenomenon. 

Many funders tell me they want to focus on affordability, democratic resilience or climate. The fight over AI infrastructure sits at the nexus of all three. It is about rising electricity bills, secret deals behind NDAs and the fossil fuel infrastructure that underpins the industry’s growth. 

AI is often presented as inevitable. Yet the infrastructure behind it still depends on local planning decisions, water supplies, electricity grids and politics. Those decisions remain contestable. Zeewolde, Cerrillos, New Brunswick — these were all stopped by committed groups of regular people who found out in time, who showed up and who kept showing up. For a climate movement searching for local, tangible and winnable campaigns, this might be a once in a lifetime opportunity.

This article The data center fight is going global was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2026/07/the-data-center-fight-is-going-global/